| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Whitty: To a certain extent we are going over the ground covered in our debate on the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Lea. The noble Baroness rightly said that this amendment does not presume a shift to nuclear build. The secondary point just referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Maclennan, is that if we did have nuclear build, whether the NDA should be responsible for planning and assessing such a project.
I do not need to rehearse the argument. The energy White Paper does not envisage the need for additional nuclear build, but even if the Government were minded to revert to the nuclear option, we do not consider the NDA to be the appropriate body either to run such a power station or to produce a plan on the feasibility of building a new power station.
As the noble Lord, Lord Maclennan, made clear, that is an issue of policy and the assessment of the practicality of any proposals which may emanate from the generating industry to produce such a power station. Such proposals would be subject to a whole range of assessments by regulatory authorities both here and under European law, as well as to the Government's assessment of the economics. It would not be appropriate to divert—and it would be a diversion—the NDA to deal with such planning and feasibility issues. Its focus must be on how to deal with the consequences of our nuclear past.
Subsection (2), which the noble Baroness says is for the avoidance of doubt, is unnecessary because Clause 3(1) does not differentiate between current or future nuclear facilities. It means that the NDA could deal with the waste and decommissioning of future facilities, were they to be built, as well as past ones. Therefore any avoidance of doubt is not necessary. There is no inhibition on the NDA dealing with future nuclear build.
The focus of the NDA must be on clean-up and decommissioning. Indeed, that focus was widely supported by all stakeholders and was central to the proposals for the creation of the NDA. It was one of the reasons why people with differing views on the future of nuclear power have all supported the concept of the NDA. It should not be diverted into issues of policy, new build and the running of nuclear facilities. If the NDA were to be given the responsibilities suggested in the amendment, it would have to develop a new tranche of expertise and skills which could only divert it from its central task.
The NDA has been given the crucial and very important task of carrying out the secure and cost-effective clean-up of our nuclear legacy. That in itself is a massive task. The estimated cost currently stands at £50 billion and the estimated time-scale is 100 years. The noble Baroness suggested that after the NDA had done all that, it might move on to something else. She did point out that that was a theoretical suggestion, but we may assume that future governments will take a view when the current task is finished. However, we must focus on the present task. To divert and dilute the NDA's focus would be wrong and would not deliver the advantages we see in creating the NDA in the form proposed by the Bill.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: As an aside, when referring to new nuclear build, the Minister said "We do not envisage it". Given that, I wonder why we hear continually that the Government are keeping the option open. In answer to a question last week, I believe the noble Lord, Lord Davies, said that, "It will not be necessary", or something of that ilk. If necessary, I shall look up the exact reference.
I understand entirely what the Minister is saying; that the NDA is not necessarily the correct body to undertake preparing plans because it has too many other things to do. I shall certainly read carefully what the Minister has said, but this issue is extraordinarily
important. It may be that at some stage the Government will say, "Perhaps we do need some new nuclear build". We do not know. We certainly heard one Minister remark at a dinner not too long ago that he envisaged it would be necessary to have some new nuclear build.All I am trying to do is to help the Government by providing a vehicle. I should say that it is always my intention to help the Government. My noble friends know that, as do noble Lords on the other side of the Committee. It would be terrible if the Government woke up one morning and decided that, "Gosh, that is what we need. What a pity we did not think it through and prepare a plan".
Perhaps I have used the wrong vehicle to achieve that—the noble Lord made the same point—and we shall have to rethink. We may be in a position to come back to the issue at a more appropriate stage. At this point, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Triesman: This may be a convenient moment for the Committee to adjourn until Tuesday at 3.30 p.m.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Brougham and Vaux): The Committee stands adjourned until Tuesday 20 January at 3.30 p.m.
- The Committee adjourned at seven o'clock.
Written Statements
Thursday 15 January 2004
Criminal Records Bureau
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Scotland of Asthal): On 27 February 2003, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary announced the Government's response to the recommendations of the independent review team appointed the previous September to take a fundamental look at the operation of the Criminal Records Bureau (CRB). One of its recommendations was that the Capita contract should be renegotiated to align the contract to the changed and evolving circumstances that had occurred since the original contract was signed back in August 2000. Following a thorough and constructive period of negotiation, the Criminal Records Bureau and Capita signed a revised contract on 22 December 2003.
The revised contract is a major step forward for the CRB and represents a substantial improvement over the previous terms. The revised contract now provides for:
as a result of recent and planned efficiency savings, from October 2004, a significant reduction in the price paid to Capita for processing each disclosure application;
the ability to achieve year-on-year operational cost reductions with further incentives to reduce operational costs over the lifetime of the contract; any such cost savings would be reflected in further price reductions; pricing levels matched to guaranteed volumes, agreed on a bi-annual basis;
additional contractual performance measures including both qualitative and quantitative standards to enhance further the disclosure service; far greater clarity of roles and responsibilities within the partnership;
incentives to allow Capita to further enhance the IT and other technical systems to meet evolving process and output requirements;
the implementation of recommendations made by independent consultants on the IT system;
an improved agreement in respect of financial penalties for failing to meet agreed performance standards, which have been revised to meet the evolving circumstances that had occurred since the original contract was signed back in August 2000;
a one-off payment to Capita of £3.6 million in final settlement of the earlier agreed contract change, which provided for the introduction of the blank application form. The payment covered the additional cost of processing the blank application forms in the period February to September 2003.
Capita's part in the renegotiation underlined its commitment to this partnership and to this important public service. It also reinforced our belief that it was preferable to continue with the partnership if at all
possible. The partnership approach, with continued open book accounting and commitment shown during this renegotiation augurs well for the future.The CRB is now on a sound footing and through the revised contract will now have far greater flexibility to improve and develop the disclosure service over the coming years.
Terrorism Act 2000: Report on Part VII
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: Lord Carlile of Berriew QC has completed the report on the operation of Part VII of the Act, which will be laid before the House today.
Planning Appeal Procedures Review
The Minister of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (Lord Rooker): My right honourable friend the Minister for Housing and Planning has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.
When the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister introduced new procedures in August 2000 to improve the handling of planning appeals we said that their operation would be monitored and reviewed. The outcome of the most recent review has suggested a need for some changes to be made.
Concern was expressed during the course of the review by a wide range of stakeholders about the perceived inequity for third parties taking part in the appeals process. It was considered anomalous that the rules do not allow third parties to comment on the appeal statements made by the main parties. In order to address this inequity and more fully involve all members of the community in the planning process, we intend to conduct a consultation on proposals to amend the rules for written representations, hearings and inquiries procedures. The proposed amendment would allow third parties that have commented at the six-week stage a further opportunity to comment on main parties' appeal statements at the nine-week stage of an appeal.
We shall also be amending the rules to take account of drafting amendments suggested by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments and to correct minor technical anomalies.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page